Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rob Roy McGregor (admiral)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per consensus, sources to support notability. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 07:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Rob Roy McGregor (admiral)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:BASIC. Awards do not meet #1 of WP:ANYBIO, source analysis follows:

Mztourist (talk) 11:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC) Comment as the page had been ref-bombed by its creator, I have updated the source table above and continue it below from ref 11. As can be seen this is a collection of snippets with nothing significant and in-depth about him:
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't in my view meet standards as noted by nom. Intothatdarkness 17:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I will never understand, if I write down information that isn't cited you would complain. So I cite the information I am adding and now I am being accused of "ref-bombing." I am only adding sources that support the material in the article. True not all of them lend to his notability, but they do lend to facts in the article. You only seem to be satisfied if the article is on the path to deletion, and don't really care about creating an encyclopaedia. McGregor in just about every book I have about the submarines in the Pacific Theatre, he is notable if you recognise it or not. Jamesallain85 (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep I can understand why this article was listed for discussion in the first place, but I am taking the time to develop the article. Still being the target of Mztourist, I am not surprised he is trying to discredit every source regardless if it is from online or from my personal library, but I would also like to remind everyone that a physical source or source requiring a subscription should not be discredited just because Mztourist cannot evaluate it. I will take time to develope the article further, I have a lot more information still to add. Jamesallain85 (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Perhaps if you bothered creating detailed pages with reliable sources from the outset rather than a lot of minimally-referenced stubs as you have done they wouldn't be put up for deletion. All you have done with your massive refbombing is add a lot of snippets and side detail about submarines patrols rather than offer any indepth coverage about him. If he was actually notable there should be indepth coverage of him, but there clearly isn't. Mztourist (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * If you wish I can start AFDing your minimally referenced stubs, there are plenty of them. You should take the time to fix your own articles before pointing your finger at someone else. It's funny, every time I AFD one of your articles you sit around and scream foul while AFDing everything else under the sun. I literally AFDed an article you wrote without a single source, remember? You just sat around screaming it was out of revenge, yet here we are again. You might want to read over WP:MILMOS before you reference it, and if you so strongly believe they shouldn't be in the info box, why are they in just about every biographical article you have written? WP:MILMOS#FLAGS states, "When dealing with biographical infobox templates, the most common practice is to use flag icons to indicate allegiance or branch of service, but not place of birth or death. " Jamesallain85 (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * No I haven't created "plenty" of minimally referenced stubs. I don't create a page unless it contains useful and properly referenced information. But if you wish to try WP:REVENGE AFDing my pages again knock yourself out and see what happens. I really don't understand your approach to page creation, you created a whole lot of stub bio pages in December 2019 and January 2020. If you thought these people were notable and worthy of record why didn't you actually provide some detail about them to share with the world? Instead you gave minimally referenced 1-2 sentence thumbnails which tell us next to nothing. Now I would understand it if you were going to come back and expand them later, but after 2 years you still haven't done so and you only seem to make any effort to expand them when they're AFDed. It seems you were just keen to create a big list of all the pages you created to show on your User page rather than provide encyclopedic information. Mztourist (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I have better things to do they play your petty games, keep AFDing my articles and making yourself look like an ass. Just like when you deleted my references and then AFDed the last article, Articles for deletion/Stanley C. Norton, you are just going to fail again. You have some kind of an issue that goes beyond anything I can help you with, if it makes you feel almighty and powerful just keep trying I guess, I don't know what else to say. Jamesallain85 (talk) 09:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * If only one of those "better things to do" was actually writing detailed properly referenced pages... Mztourist (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Are you autistic? Because every time I attempt to discuss something with you, you hang on one little issue and fail to grasp the larger picture of what is going on, and just ignore everything out of your little window. You are living in your own little world. Jamesallain85 (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clearly enough material to meet WP:GNG and I think three Silver Stars also meet WP:ANYBIO #1. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Move to the draft space Man was a flag officer, a hard rank to reach, and has awards to justify his claim, but hte article is a work in progress and needs help. I think it may be that its simply out in the mainspace too soon for its own good, and would recommend moving to the draft space for completion and fitting out before launching. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep
 * I have changed to Keep. He does have the medals and he has made about dozen patrols, sinking several ships, but the article, I really don't like the referencing structure. I really don't like Newspaper story only viewable through subscription There is several places where you can view on WP, with editors, with a WikiProject and by signing up.  scope_creep Talk  20:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read any of the supporting book references? If not, how would you know if they support an article or not? Jamesallain85 (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep For whatever reason, some of you didn't sign up yet to Wikipedia Library so you could read news articles at Newspaper.com, and thus can't see the significant coverage this person has received. Globe-Gazette (Mason City, Iowa) 08 Feb 1947, Sat Page 10 Submarine Skipper Coming With Caravan to Mason City They refer to him as "famed submarine skipper" and write: The "subs" under Capt. McGregor's command sank thousands of tons of Jap shipping during the late war.  For these deeds he wears 3 silver medals, the successful sub-marine combat patrol emblem and the gold dolphins of the submarine service of the U. S. navy.  He is one of the youngest officers in the navy to hold the rank of captain. The article goes on about him in detail.  Dismissing the coverage found because "Newspaper story only viewable through subscription", is ridiculous.  You can freely sign up for Wikipedia Library at https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/   D r e a m Focus  14:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Dream Focus I have signed up for Wikipedia Library, I don't see Newspaper.com listed there, how are you accessing the Globe-Gazette story? Mztourist (talk) 10:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * They have two things with similar names. Newspaper Archives and Newspapers.com by ancestry.   D r e a m Focus  17:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Flag officer who is clearly notable. Exceeds WP:Soldier.  Notable per WP:GNG.  As noted above, there are myriad sources that establish his notability.   Notability depends on existence of sources, not what is cited in the article or available on line.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 15:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:SOLDIER is deprecated and "". -Ljleppan (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Duly noted. Does not change the outcome. It is cumulative in any event, since there are lots of sources.  See WP:Before, which makes article improvement a preference to deletion.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎</b>) 16:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , a myriad is inconsequential if the sources do not count towards notability. Which are the key sources which shaped your judgement here please? MrsSnoozyTurtle 11:04, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. in the nomination, the basis for deprecating many sources is that they require a subscription. WP policy is firmly established that this is not an adequate reason--sources need not be in open access. They are in principle available, and can be requested in multiple ways. including going to a library that hasacess or usingthe Resource Exchange. For book references, we assume good faith.  They too are available in libraries.   DGG ( talk ) 18:28, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per DF, 7&6 & DGG and all the criteria that has clearly been met. WHY is this nom even here? Have to wonder about that, and all the nasty comments as well. Clearly there's some personal issues that need to be sorted out somehwhere else, instead of wasting people's time here. -  wolf  18:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as per previous opinions. Amazes me that Admirals (with supporting sources) can be disputed when the rules for Actors, Singers, Professors and especially Sports people are so broad Lyndaship (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I prefer to see that as a problem with SNGs. If everything was decided on available sourcing articles would probably be distributed in a more equitable fashion. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Amazing isn't it? One can spend a career including commanding warships at war, reaching high command levels (or significant service in any field) and not be as notable as some passing pop singer or "personality" with reams of trivial press. Palmeira (talk) 13:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - I looked at the sources and did some digging in my university database, and was honestly expecting to find plenty of material, but in reality there's a lack of in-depth WP:SIGCOV in secondary sources. A look at what the provided sources actually support seems to indicate this article is littered with WP:SYNTH (some of my edits), which makes it appear much stronger than it really is. I sincerely wonder whether the books cited actually mentioned McGregor much at all, or if they are talking about the Grouper. The newspaper articles are almost all single mentions, with the exception of the wedding notice (probably info provided for by the family). -Indy beetle (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment it's about as straightforward as a military bio can be, listing htesignificant commands and actions. Putting material in chronologicalorder is not SYNTH.  DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * SYNTH is writing The Navy would seemingly take back its punitive action against McGregor, as in March 1945 he would be awarded a second Silver Star when the source provided only demonstrates that he was given the award; it makes no comment about what the Navy was "seemingly" doing. Or writing While serving aboard the S-14, McGregor became qualified on submarines when the source provided doesn't say that. Articles with subjects that have SIGCOV generally don't have this problem, since the SIGCOV sources will weave the disparate facts about the person together. This is simply name drops in newspapers and in the naval register. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly, he has no significant coverage. This page is a string of name drops and non-independent sources bulked out with details about patrols that belong on the respective submarine pages. Mztourist (talk) 09:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This sort of synth was also common in many of the Tuskegeee Airmen articles (along with misrepresentation of sources). Since many of those were retained, it would appear source integrity is not especially important in many cases. Intothatdarkness 13:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I note the inclusion of genealogy blogs to also “win” the deletion argument. I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a correlation between an article being “rescued” and a decline in its integrity. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Seriously? A blog called Time Detectives? This just keeps getting worse... Mztourist (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Work needed, but certainly more notable that scores of trivial pop personalities considered "notable" because there are "personalities" and of no real substance. A quick look shows more references available, including a group photo dated 2 September 1945 officers at the newly established Yokosuka Submarine Base showing he was a staff officer of SubRon 6 in those first days of occupation. Deputy Director, Office of Public Relations (Navy) in 1950. Comodore, Fifth Destroyer Division. Multiple references to the Run Silent, Run Deep technical advisor role (there the "pop culture">hard substance again). Palmeira (talk) 13:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC) PS: He may have retired as a Vice Admiral in one of those "bump up" on retirement honors but a social note about his wife is not sufficient evidence. Palmeira (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * These all seem to be single mentions. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, as there are clearly enough sources to show notability.Jackattack1597 (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.